Illinois State Bar Association Statement Concerning Attacks on the Judiciary and the Erosion of Institutional Respect

At its meeting on Feb. 27, 2026, the ISBA Board of Governors adopted the following statement on behalf of the Association:

The President of the United States recently admonished the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who ruled against his tariffs, describing the six justices as a “disgrace to our nation.” He further attacked the justices who ruled against his tariffs in personal terms, suggesting that they hated our country, were “disloyal to the Constitution,” and were motivated by foreign powers. Two justices who were appointed by this president, were singled out and attacked as “an embarrassment to their families.” These statements followed earlier statements in November where the president characterized the group of small businesses who brought the lawsuit challenging the tariffs as “evil, American hating forces” who were fighting against him. A healthy democracy invites public discourse and critique of judicial review—however, this is not dialogue. This is dangerous rhetoric that attempts to reinforce the perception that courts are partisan and not independent constitutional institutions, guided by the rule of law. To compound this, many non-lawyers do not differentiate between federal and state courts. When a president targets the U.S. Supreme Court in this manner, it places a strain on the constitutional balance and invites public distrust of both federal and state courts, which leads to violence towards judges.

The erosion of institutional respect does not occur in isolation. Most recently in Illinois, during the litigation that followed Operation Midway Blitz, we observed long-standing U.S. Department of Justice norms upended, court orders not being followed, and a lack of candidness to the court. Historically, the Department of Justice has relied on internal formal and informal accountability systems to manage the competence and professionalism of its attorneys. These accountability systems led the courts to generally apply a presumption of regularity. The presumption of regularity is a principle of deference that narrows judicial scrutiny over executive decisions. In practice, the courts have assumed that officials and government agencies have acted properly and lawfully in discharging their duties. However, the current administration has publicly abandoned these accountability systems. So, while presumptions may be overcome, until recently, courts have rarely found cause to do so. Just one example includes U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis’ repeated skepticism about simply accepting government assurances at face value in Chicago Headline Club v. Department of Homeland Security, et al., which, in part, led to temporary and then preliminary relief that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Moreover, what we’ve observed in Illinois is part of a broader pattern nationwide. During the month of January 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated at least 96 court orders across 74 cases in Minnesota, according to U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, who noted this was likely a substantial undercount. Judge Schiltz stated that ICE violated more court orders in that single month than some federal agencies had violated in their entire history. In New Jersey, Department of Justice attorneys admitted to violating 50 federal court orders in immigration-related habeas corpus cases. These violations occurred in approximately 547 cases handled since December of 2025 through the present, and included missing deadlines for bond hearings, failing to release detainees when ordered, transferring detainees out of the district despite no-transfer orders, and failing to produce evidence required by court orders.

The role of the federal government as an agent to improve the common welfare is in serious question. But in response, we have seen an unprecedented wave of attorneys who have resigned from the Department of Justice in protest, chose candidness towards the court at the expense of their employment, or opted to simply leave the Department of Justice. Additionally, we have borne witness to lawyers’ and judges’ responsibilities being fulfilled. Critically, meeting these responsibilities are being made manifest by lawyers’ insistence on and respect for due process, transparent and complete fact-finding, well-founded arguments based on precedent and the law, civility and respect towards those involved in the judicial system, and general respect for judicial institutions.

As lawyers, our responsibilities are clear. We have all taken an oath to support the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions. We must continue to hold each other accountable to our high standards of professionalism. We must continue to support our courts as they enforce their high ethical standards. We must continue to ensure that legal processes are not diminished, distorted, or undermined because it is us—the lawyers and judges—who bear responsibility for sustaining the public’s confidence in our justice system.

In helping lawyers fulfill their responsibilities, and as an example for others, the ISBA renews its condemnation of, and pledge to not remain silent about, the unprecedented challenges and assaults on our independent and impartial judicial system, and the preservation of Americans’ fundamental and inalienable rights as established in the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions.